Justice

[Eucharisted]

Everyone has their own idea of what justice is, but few know what justice really is. Because justice isn’t relative but absolute. It is where we get our sense of right and wrong. Some call it a product of nature, others call it a fruit of conscience. But neither of these answers suffice, because not everything in nature is just and the conscience is submissive to justice, not justice to conscience. This is easily seen from the way animals act, to the behavior of men who follow their base passions, to the fact that some men feel as if they do wrong when they commit a wrong without knowing that it is wrong.

Now, define justice.

 

[Spock]

Justice is human concotion which attempts to do the impossible: namely to “undo” something that which should not have been done in the first place. Since a bad deed cannot be “undone”, justice tries to approximate the restitution for the bad deed - to balance again what has been upset. TANJ - there ain’t no justice.

 

[tonyrey]

Justice is human concoction which attempts to do the impossible: namely to “undo” something that which should not have been done in the first place. Since a bad deed cannot be “undone”, justice tries to approximate the restitution for the bad deed - to balance again what has been upset. TANJ - there ain’t no justice.

Justice is not an attempt to do the impossible. The recognition that something should not have been done implies that there are things that should not be done - and therefore that there are also things that should be done. It follows that justice is primarily doing what should be done, i.e. what is right, and avoiding doing things that should not be done., i.e. what is wrong.

Since we are social beings it also follows that we should try to help others to do what is right and try to prevent others from doing what is wrong. All this implies that the physical and psychological circumstances we can control are either unjust or unjust. It is unjust, for example, to punish a person who has done nothing wrong. It is also monstrously unjust to allow people to die of hunger and disease if it is within our power to prevent that happening…

Perfect justice obviously cannot be achieved because, as you point out, an unjust deed cannot be “undone”. But that is not a good reason for doing nothing. Often an unjust deed can be rectified, e.g. by restoring stolen property and compensating the owner for distress or financial loss incurred as a result of the theft. The legal system exists in order to maintain justice as far as possible.

It is certainly not true that “there ain’t no justice”. There must have been justice before the unjust deed was committed. Otherwise the situation must have been unjust to begin with! Perhaps it was unjust in other ways but now the situation is even more unjust. Stolen property may have been stolen from some one else!! There has never been a state of perfect justice in this world since human beings became aware of what is right and wrong - and chose to do what was wrong. In the animal kingdom there is no injustice because moral awareness and free will do not exist…

 

[liquidpele]

Justice is not an attempt to do the impossible. The recognition that something should not have been done implies that there are things that should not be done - and therefore that there are also things that should be done. It follows that justice is primarily doing what should be done, i.e. what is right, and avoiding doing things that should not be done., i.e. what is wrong.

60% of the time, it works every time.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Justice is the righting of wrongs. Its counterpart is mercy, the relation of love between a wronged party and the person who wronged him/her.

Mercy is only possible when love is accepted. When mercy occurs, justice also occurs: a wrong has been righted, a relationship restored.

When mercy does not occur, yet still justice may occur – here, it is manifested by a visiting of pain on him who caused pain.

Justice without the offer of mercy is not an absolute good. In God, the two are always combined.

The state is not in the business of mercy, nor should it be.

Every person ought to be in the business of mercy, lest he become a criminal lobbying for his own destruction.

 

[Bluegoat]

I would suggest that you try reading The Republic, which is on the very question you have asked.

Plato’s answer is that it is using things in the right way, each thing operating according to it’s nature, and understood in proper relation to other things.

For individuals, justice means each person fulfilling his proper duties.

 

[tonyrey]

60% of the time, it works every time.

I regret that I don’t understand what you mean…

 

[Areopagite]

Justice is human concotion which attempts to do the impossible: namely to “undo” something that which should not have been done in the first place. Since a bad deed cannot be “undone”, justice tries to approximate the restitution for the bad deed - to balance again what has been upset. TANJ - there ain’t no justice.

What if I break a window of someone’s and then … to undo the damage … I buy him a new one? That would be justice. No?

 

[Spock]

What if I break a window of someone’s and then … to undo the damage … I buy him a new one? That would be justice. No?

For such minor problems it might seem so. However, the broken window would cause frustration which cannot be “undone” by replacing the old one. Our house has been burglarized once. Nothing of value was taken, but the feeling of being violated still persists after many years - and that cannot be removed. For bigger problems the replacement or restitution is probably impossible. A lost virginity due to a rape cannot be restored. A murder is final, it cannot be remedied.

Now the concept of punishment presents a very interesting problem. Obviously two “wrongs” do not make a “right”. So, when contemplating the punishment for a violent crime, one must ask: “how does the violent act of punishing make up for the violent act of the crime”? It does not, and it cannot. The idea of “revenge” is not very civilized… the best way to look at it as a kind of prevention of the next possible deed - but that has nothing to do with “justice”. Indeed, this will look very strange at first sight, but it is worth to think it over: the crime comes first and the retribution comes afterwards… it is just as weird as imprisoning an innocent person, who will “gain the right” to perform an unlawful act to remedy his imprisonment. Looks strange at first sight, but it is exactly as logical as “punishing” a bad deed… the difference is merely the sequence of the events.

No, there is no such thing as justice… if it were possible to prevent “wrong” acts, that would be the solution… but we have no such power.

 

[liquidpele]

For such minor problems it might seem so. However, the broken window would cause frustration which cannot be “undone” by replacing the old one. Our house has been burglarized once. Nothing of value was taken, but the feeling of being violated still persists after many years - and that cannot be removed. For bigger problems the replacement or restitution is probably impossible. A lost virginity due to a rape cannot be restored. A murder is final, it cannot be remedied.

Now the concept of punishment presents a very interesting problem. Obviously two “wrongs” do not make a “right”. So, when contemplating the punishment for a violent crime, one must ask: “how does the violent act of punishing make up for the violent act of the crime”? It does not, and it cannot. The idea of “revenge” is not very civilized… the best way to look at it as a kind of prevention of the next possible deed - but that has nothing to do with “justice”. Indeed, this will look very strange at first sight, but it is worth to think it over: the crime comes first and the retribution comes afterwards… it is just as weird as imprisoning an innocent person, who will “gain the right” to perform an unlawful act to remedy his imprisonment. Looks strange at first sight, but it is exactly as logical as “punishing” a bad deed… the difference is merely the sequence of the events.

No, there is no such thing as justice… if it were possible to prevent “wrong” acts, that would be the solution… but we have no such power.

That’s an interesting idea… but I think you play far too much into the sequence of events. There is a sequence because that’s the only way it makes sense… the physical world has a causality chain that allows for us to make sense in a one directional timeline (disregarding quantum theory anyway).

I think Justice is simply an idea, so it may not exist as a physical entity, but an idea can be just as, if not more, powerful. I personally like the idea of it, but I do think that it means different things to different people… but that’s a feature of most ideas.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

The idea of “revenge” is not very civilized…

But is that all you have to say against it?

Frankly, I think taking revenge on someone who harmed someone in my family is a good deal more rational than letting the wrong go unpunished. Even if I were *guaranteed *that they would not harm my family again, I would still feel it right that they had to undergo significant unpleasantness as a consequence.

(I agree, by the way, that no amount of restitution can make up for certain crimes.)

Here is the issue, though: why does it matter if revenge isn’t civilized? It’s clearly a part of human nature that we want to take revenge. Are you saying that we have a base nature? Apart from the fact that sometimes it doesn’t work out well, what is your objection to revenge?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Everyone has their own idea of what justice is, but few know what justice really is. Because justice isn’t relative but absolute. It is where we get our sense of right and wrong. Some call it a product of nature, others call it a fruit of conscience. But neither of these answers suffice, because not everything in nature is just and the conscience is submissive to justice, not justice to conscience. This is easily seen from the way animals act, to the behavior of men who follow their base passions, to the fact that some men feel as if they do wrong when they commit a wrong without knowing that it is wrong.

Now, define justice.

A lot of people confuse fairness and justice.

I think you do so in your post.

You said, “not everything in nature is just”, I disagree with you, nature can be nothing but just, it is not fair at times though.

Please provide examples of how nature is not just.

 

[Bluegoat]

A lot of people confuse fairness and justice.

I think you do so in your post.

You said, “not everything in nature is just”, I disagree with you, nature can be nothing but just, it is not fair at times though.

Please provide examples of how nature is not just.

I think often people think nature is not just because it can be so brutal. Along the “why would a loving God allow natural act X”. Maybe X could be those wasps that lay their eggs in live caterpillars, or a natural disaster. Christianity as the religion of love seems to be taught in a way, at least in the West, that allows for this kind of idea of love to be taken for granted. I don’t think that was always the case and it may not be in the East even now, and ultimatly I think it can cause a lot of confusion.

 

[Areopagite]

For such minor problems it might seem so. However, the broken window would cause frustration which cannot be “undone” by replacing the old one. Our house has been burglarized once. Nothing of value was taken, but the feeling of being violated still persists after many years - and that cannot be removed.

Are you saying that all emotional trauma persists no matter what? There is no such thing as emotional healing? It’s against the laws of biology that one can recover from trauma? Personally, I’ve gone over at least some things.

Now the concept of punishment presents a very interesting problem. Obviously two “wrongs” do not make a “right”. So, when contemplating the punishment for a violent crime, one must ask: “how does the violent act of punishing make up for the violent act of the crime”? It does not, and it cannot.

I would at least say that punishing a criminal is good for the criminal. It’s amazing how punishment can teach a person a lesson. If someone does an evil, and he goes unpunished, he carries with him a certain disorder. Just punishment restores that order. Face it, if we didn’t punish criminals in some way … things would be bad. But perhaps you disagree (some people do).

The idea of “revenge” is not very civilized… the best way to look at it as a kind of prevention of the next possible deed - but that has nothing to do with “justice”.

It depends how your define “revenge.” Oftentimes, revenge is simply punishment that goes beyond the demands of justice. But it’s very much related to justice.

I would say that indeed the administration of justice can prevent future evil deeds. But it also helps restore order in the person who committed the injustice.

Revenge is often seen as something that doesn’t really prevent further deeds of evil, but it actually causes endless cycles of evil. Revenge really is never taken with the view to prevent future evil, but is a kind of private thing done out of anger for personal satisfaction.

Indeed, this will look very strange at first sight, but it is worth to think it over: the crime comes first and the retribution comes afterwards… it is just as weird as imprisoning an innocent person, who will “gain the right” to perform an unlawful act to remedy his imprisonment. Looks strange at first sight, but it is exactly as logical as “punishing” a bad deed… the difference is merely the sequence of the events.

Wow. Totally lost me there. I gave it a second and third sight, and it didn’t make any more sense. I suppose the same logic would go along with taking antibiotics … even if you’re not sick now, you will be … so you better take antibiotics for no reason now. Both the innocent man and the healthy man do not require such treatment, and it’s actually not good for them because of that.

I don’t know what you mean by “gain the right.” Committing crimes is never a “right.”

No, there is no such thing as justice… if it were possible to prevent “wrong” acts, that would be the solution… but we have no such power.

If there’s no such thing as justice … is there no such thing as injustice?

 

[Bluegoat]

To my mind, if a crime or injustice has been committed, there are four things that need to be put back into their proper relationship. The person who committed the injustice must be put back into a proper relation to himself, to the person the injustice was against, to the community, and to God.

There are a variety of ways this can begin to be accomplished. But ultimately, Christianity teaches that we cannot put some of them right on our own. We cannot “pay back” God, at the very least. Depending on the circumstances, we may well not be able to regain perfect balance on the others either.

But then isn’t this just the problem that Christianity addresses? God has made that redress for us, to himself. And what is more, he has made it quite clear how we are to treat what is “left over” between us as individuals, and even within ourselves. We are to forgive those people their debts against us, and give them over to God, always. He has paid for them to, and the offenses in the end were against him more than ourselves.

So it seems to me that not only is justice real, and complete, we have even been told what part we need to play in it.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I think often people think nature is not just because it can be so brutal. Along the “why would a loving God allow natural act X”. Maybe X could be those wasps that lay their eggs in live caterpillars, or a natural disaster. Christianity as the religion of love seems to be taught in a way, at least in the West, that allows for this kind of idea of love to be taken for granted. I don’t think that was always the case and it may not be in the East even now, and ultimatly I think it can cause a lot of confusion.

For me it is impossible for nature to work in an unjust way as what it does is natural. Injustice is not natural. For sometime to be unjust it must work against its nature.

I think it take sentience to commit an injustice.

But as I said, I think the biggest error is that many people confuse justice and fairness. Just because something is unfair does not make it unjust.

 

[Oreoracle]

Indeed, this will look very strange at first sight, but it is worth to think it over: the crime comes first and the retribution comes afterwards… it is just as weird as imprisoning an innocent person, who will “gain the right” to perform an unlawful act to remedy his imprisonment. Looks strange at first sight, but it is exactly as logical as “punishing” a bad deed… the difference is merely the sequence of the events.

I agree that Spock’s argument is odd, but I applaud him for it because, in a way, he’s hit the nail on the head. The underlying attitude behind all “justice-based” ethical systems is “everyone should get what they deserve so that we can maintain balance.” Getting what one deserves is nothing more than receiving a fate suitable to that person given certain considerations. In this case, actions are being considered; specifically criminal actions. Let’s just say that the crime is assault or perhaps something else that we can all agree is wrong. Now, according to the common conception of justice, it is fitting to be imprisoned for X months/years after assaulting another because that is what one “deserves” and not because it will prevent similar crimes in the future (prevention of future crimes is by far the more practical approach). This thought process is propelled by the misguided notion that hurting person X balances the harm X has dealt to person Y (I don’t know how two different types of pain can be directly compared and, in any case, how producing pain makes up for pain inflicted previously.).

So if the goal of justice is to deal with others based on their previous dealings, then Spock is cheating by skewing the sequence. But if the more fundamental goal is merely to create balance, then imprisoning someone for no reason causes undue suffering that must be balanced, and Spock begins to make sense. It seems appropriate to say that if undue crime merits imprisonment, then undue imprisonment merits crime. The only complaint I have with Spock’s argument is that he didn’t specify who would be victimized by this “deserved” criminal action. Obviously, if we want balance, the crime should be directed at those who unduly imprisoned the man in the first place.

Needless to say, “an eye for an eye” has never gotten us far, and certainly wouldn’t look too good as a bumper sticker.

 

[Areopagite]

To my mind, if a crime or injustice has been committed, there are four things that need to be put back into their proper relationship. The person who committed the injustice must be put back into a proper relation to himself, to the person the injustice was against, to the community, and to God.

There are a variety of ways this can begin to be accomplished. But ultimately, Christianity teaches that we cannot put some of them right on our own. We cannot “pay back” God, at the very least. Depending on the circumstances, we may well not be able to regain perfect balance on the others either.

But then isn’t this just the problem that Christianity addresses? God has made that redress for us, to himself. And what is more, he has made it quite clear how we are to treat what is “left over” between us as individuals, and even within ourselves. We are to forgive those people their debts against us, and give them over to God, always. He has paid for them to, and the offenses in the end were against him more than ourselves.

So it seems to me that not only is justice real, and complete, we have even been told what part we need to play in it.

Very good, Bluegoat. I agree.

So if the goal of justice is to deal with others based on their previous dealings, then Spock is cheating by skewing the sequence. But if the more fundamental goal is merely to create balance, then imprisoning someone for no reason causes undue suffering that must be balanced, and Spock begins to make sense. It seems appropriate to say that if undue crime merits imprisonment, then undue imprisonment merits crime.

I might be a complete moron, but I have no idea how this makes sense. I’m not seeing the logic here.

One should not seek to upset the balance of justice. By imprisoning them before they commit a crime, you do just that (i.e. upset the balance), and then require punishment later on. The better thing would have been not to upset the balance in the first place, assuming that the balance of justice is a good thing. You only imprison someone to restore the balance. So an answer to the question, “Should we imprison people ahead of time to atone for crimes ahead of time,” would be, “No, because that action would disrupt the balance of justice, requiring to be fixed later on.”

It makes as much sense as breaking your car, and then fixing it, with the excuse, “I did this so I didn’t have to fix it later on.” Huh? First of all, with the imprisonment example and the car example, there seems to be some assumption that the person is actually going to commit a crime … but that’s not necessarily true. We don’t know future contingents. Most atheists and agnostics would agree to that.

Now, maybe I completely misunderstood the point. I think I did … because I didn’t understand it at all.

The only complaint I have with Spock’s argument is that he didn’t specify who would be victimized by this “deserved” criminal action. Obviously, if we want balance, the crime should be directed at those who unduly imprisoned the man in the first place.

Right. Exactly. So the argument … dare I say … doesn’t make any sense. Right?

 

[Oreoracle]

I might be a complete moron, but I have no idea how this makes sense. I’m not seeing the logic here.

No one’s a moron, here, but I do think we’re complicating things by mixing several ideas. I don’t think anyone should be blamed for any confusion that might result.

One should not seek to upset the balance of justice.

In case you were wondering, I don’t actually agree with the ethical concept of justice. I’m just supporting Spock’s criticism of systems based on the concept. I care about utility, not justice.

By imprisoning them before they commit a crime, you do just that (i.e. upset the balance), and then require punishment later on.

Precisely. Crime upsets the balance, and preemptive punishment does the same. According to justice theory, things of this sort must be countered by equal and opposite effects in order to restore balance. So if punishment counters crime, would crime not counter punishment?

The better thing would have been not to upset the balance in the first place, assuming that the balance of justice is a good thing.

This would be the case with the original sequence of events (crime to punishment), no?

You only imprison someone to restore the balance. So an answer to the question, “Should we imprison people ahead of time to atone for crimes ahead of time,” would be, “No, because that action would disrupt the balance of justice, requiring to be fixed later on.”

I think we’re on different wavelengths here. The person in question has been imprisoned for doing nothing, so the balance of justice would already be disrupted. The person would then be morally obligated to commit a crime in order to restore the balance caused by the preemptive punishment. It’s like the common “eye for an eye” practice, except the order of the victims has been reversed. Either way, balance ensues, so how is there any morally significant difference between this and the standard sequence of crime-to-punishment? I think justice theories fail to address the apparent lack of utility in this method. Sometimes, “righting a wrong” simply makes no sense, and this argument exploits that.

It makes as much sense as breaking your car, and then fixing it, with the excuse, “I did this so I didn’t have to fix it later on.” Huh?

Correct. This is why I prefer the standard of utility to the standard of justice. It makes loads more sense.

First of all, with the imprisonment example and the car example, there seems to be some assumption that the person is actually going to commit a crime … but that’s not necessarily true. We don’t know future contingents. Most atheists and agnostics would agree to that.

Well now you’re just complaining about philosophic inquiry. Hypotheticals pervade the world of philosophy; they’re our ways of simplifying otherwise complex systems, theories, etc. This is just an “if” scenario designed to prompt an answer for a straightforward ethical question. Now, you could ask,“Why not just ask the question then?” The answer: that would be too easy.

Personally, I suspect that the type of questioning we see in this thread is designed to separate the consequentialists from the deontologists. Essentially: do you believe punishment should be used to dissuade others from future crimes, or simply because the criminals deserve it? Considering the role that morality has in society, I think it’s just plain suicidal to remove actions from their consequences when rendering their moral value, so I would side with the former, hence my disagreement with justice.

Now, maybe I completely misunderstood the point. I think I did … because I didn’t understand it at all.

My guess is that you don’t agree with the standard of justice that’s being discussed, and so we’ve began with different ideas of “justice” from the start. I’d take that as a compliment, if I were you.

Right. Exactly. So the argument … dare I say … doesn’t make any sense. Right?

I wouldn’t say so. I’m just saying that the argument would be more persuasive and fluid if Spock would add more detail. As it stands, it doesn’t have a chance at persuading others in this thread.

 

[Areopagite]

No one’s a moron, here, but I do think we’re complicating things by mixing several ideas. I don’t think anyone should be blamed for any confusion that might result.

Thanks.

I wouldn’t say so. I’m just saying that the argument would be more persuasive and fluid if Spock would add more detail. As it stands, it doesn’t have a chance at persuading others in this thread.

Yeah. That sounds good.

In case you were wondering, I don’t actually agree with the ethical concept of justice. I’m just supporting Spock’s criticism of systems based on the concept. I care about utility, not justice.

Ah, yes. This view. Now, I can see why people are utilitarians (that’s what you are, right?). You are talking about … the ends justify the means, right (unless there are other utilitarian systems I don’t know about … there could be hundreds … I’m unread on the topic)?

Now … just out of curiosity … what are the ends in utilitarianism? Do they differ from utilitarian to utilitarian? I assume they would. And wouldn’t some ends be bad? And if so, doesn’t justice start to fit into the picture?

Those are just some very general questions. Perhaps you’re not a utilitarian at all. But I’m curious then why “utility” is necessarily in conflict with the idea of “justice.”